About your Search

20120925
20121003
STATION
CSPAN 8
CSPAN2 4
CNN 2
CNNW 2
MSNBC 1
MSNBCW 1
LANGUAGE
English 19
Search Results 0 to 18 of about 19 (some duplicates have been removed)
." this is a very old statute enacted by the first congress. it has sat dormant for 170 years. in some civil right type folks picked it up. -- been some civil right type folks picked it up and started bringing cases in which the plaintiff is foreign. the defendant is foreign. the tour took place in some foreign place. they say you have jurisdiction over this. courts have been going for this. they have been allowing some of these cases to go forward. this case raised the question of the of -- in this particular case, it took place in nigeria. the guy says the nigerian government committed these against me. they mistreated me. these foreign will company's work implicit -- foreign companies were implicit. so i am wanting to sue the oil companies in federal court. the defendant say this is not apply to corporations. he cannot actually sue a corporation under the statute. that was their claim. they did something very unusual. they actually said we want to consider a broader question. we would like you to brief not just this question of does it apply to corporations, but also doesn't apply extraterritor
win and my retort is if you look back over the years, from women's suffrage, civil rights, to more recently the alternative ener movement, have been borne from third parties garn hing enough votes away from the two major political parties so engrained in the status quo that they never impose the sweeping changes so i hope you can comment on the role of third parties not necessarily in winning elections but in changing the agenda to the point where we get the changes we end up treasuring over the next century. host: thank you for the call. dr. jill stein. guest: thank you for making that point, which is very important. in fact, what so many people call progress in this country, whether you talk about women getting the right to vote, the abbitionist slavery, the protection of workers in the workplace, the right to organize, the 40 hour work week, child labor laws, social social security, the new deal, you name it, all of these have come out of independent third parties, because as you say, the party that is are bought and paid for by large corporations which are part of the status qu
to get ahead of things, the plaintiffs here are attorneys, civil rights activists and others who are in regular contact with people overseas particularly people who might well be the subject of electronic surveillance by the federal government and they are challenging the law that allows electronic surveillance, this wiretapping because they're concerned that their case will be picked up. they're claiming to have standing to challenge this law because even though the surveillance might be directed overseas to people they're talking to get their dedication will get picked up in the course of that surveillance and so therefore they have the right to challenge it in court. that is the standing issue we we are dealing with. just to get to the merits for a minute, and the aftermath of the exposÉ in the mid-70's about various abuses in the intelligence community and in short in short is set up a system by which the executive branch would have to go to the court surveillance court here in d.c. and get permission when they wanted to do wiretapping for national security purpose to give s
presidents do. on civil rights, especially, there was a lot of movement from 1962, when the tapes start to 1963. it was all changing. the white house had swung very much behind the civil rights movement in the fall of 1963. >> he was very involved in the minut minutia, like our other boss, president clinton. >> exactly. incredible moment in august 28th, 1963, the great martin luther king speech "i have a dream" had just happened and they had a political strategy session where president kennedy went through all the members of the house and senate and what he thought their likelihood was to support civil rights. it was clear, he was on their side, driving it forward. >> there's a little clip that exposes a personal side of the president as well. let's play that. >> i wanted to do back to jordan marsh. >> all right, sir. i want that follow's incompetent who had his picture taken in next to mrs. kennedy's bed. he is a silly bastard. i wouldn't have him running a cat house. >> he is furious over a $5,000 bill for a hospital room, right? sn>> a timely expenditure built for a legitimate reason
know, he gets a lot of grief on civil rights. and it's true he did not use the bully pulpit. he could have done a better job on that. but he was a subtle guy. he desegregated d.c. when people weren't watching. he desegrated the armed wt tr. appointed all the federal judges that desegregated the south. he believed in moving, as john was saying, with a hidden hand. that's true on civil rights as well. he's been unfairly criticized for being weak on civil rights. he was not as strong as he could havebeen, but he did ts poant. w >> let's talk, presidential historian, jon meacham, who has a book coming out after the election that's forthcoming. "thomas jefferson, t.j." ike, a good president? a ar great president? or a great president? think that he -- one of the things we haven't talked about on the domestic side is he ratified what franklin roosevelt and harry truman had done in that he could have created --n 1952, 3,it cle,think, and check me on this, evan, was such that if he had been really intent on rolling back the new deal and the fair deal, it would ve been a huge fight and would h
enacted by the first congress. but it sat dormant for 170 odd years. then some civil rights type folks picked it up and human rights type folks and started bringing cases in which the plaintiff is foreign, the defendant is foreign, and the tort took place in some foreign place and they are bringing it to u.s. courts. so a paraguayan plaintiff and a pair of wayne defendant and it took place in her way. so the ticket to a u.s. -- a paraguayan plaintiff and a paraguayan defendant and it took place in paraguay. so they take it to the u.s. in this particular case, k iobal takes place in nigeria. and the nigerian government mistreated me, torture and so forth and these will companies, foreign oil companies, were complice it, helping the nigerian government do this to me. so i am wanting to sue the oil companies in federal court. and the oil companies defendants say that this does not apply to corporations. you cannot sue a corporation under this statute. that was their claim last year at the supreme court and the u.s. supreme court heard arguments in the case and did something very unusual.
guaranteed act, on par with the civil-rights of the 1960's. host: john from illinois. caller: the only problem that i have is about the tax issue. the reason why i say that is our taxes in this country have never been set up to be fair. what they were set up for was that the rich were supposed to pay the majority of their taxes in federal taxes. working-class and the port were supposed to pay the majority of theirs in homeowners' taxes, city and state taxes -- ordering class and the poor. everything is out of sorts. when you are on fixed income and these states will have to have such a high tax rate because the federal government will have such a lower one. anybody i fixed tax rate goes in and buys a refrigerator that costs $400, will have about a $100 tax on the refrigerator. that is the problem. the ones it will hurt our people that are retired, people that are on disability, things like that. otherwise, i am completely in line with you. i voted for ron paul in 1988. i voted for paul brown. i think he -- i can remember what year it was that he ran as a libertarian. once.ed for ross p
with the civil-rights of the 1960's. host: john from illinois. john is an independent. hey there. caller: the only problem that i have is about the tax issue. the reason why i say that is our taxes in this country have neverwhat they were set up for was that the rich were supposed to pay the majority of their taxes in federal taxes. working-class and the port were supposed to pay the majority of theirs in homeowners' taxes, city and state taxes -- ordering class and the poor. everything is out of sorts. when you are on fixed income and these states will have to have such a high tax rate because the federal government will have such a lower one. anybody i fixed tax rate goes in and buys a refrigerator that costs $400, will have about a $100 tax on the refrigerator. that is the problem. the ones it will hurt our people that are retired, people that are on disability, things like that. otherwise, i am completely in line with you. i voted for ron paul in 1988. i voted for paul brown. i think he -- i can remember what year it was that he ran as a libertarian. i voted for ross perot once. i am
with civil rights of the '60s. >> host: john is from illinois now. john is an independent. hi there. >> caller: hi. mr. johnson, the only problem i have is about the tax issue. and the reason why it's like -- the reason why i say that is, our taxes in this country have never been set at actually to be fair. what they were set up for originally was that the rich were supposed to pay the majority of their taxes in federal taxes, and the working class and the poor were supposed to pay most of -- the majority of theirs in home owners taxes, city and state taxes. and that has been all -- it's got everything out of sorts. my problem with what everybody calls a fair tax is, when you're on a fixed income, and these states are going to have to have such a high tax rate because the federal government is going to have such a lower one, that when anybody that is on a fixed tax rate goes in and buys a refrigerator, they cost $400, the lowest one they can buy, they have about $100 tax on the refrigerator. that is the problem. and the only ones it's going to hurt is people that are retired, people
hispanics. it is a civil rights group the advancement project that came out talking about the potential impact of all of the various efforts in particularly states where there is a big latino population. is that related to this voter i.d. or you know, what other forms, attempts of voter suppression. >> it is related to voter i.d. but we're seeing a lot of other techniques. so in florida, they made it very, very hard to do voter registration drives, the paperwork requirements were very ominous and it was a crime if you didn't comply with them. most organizations including the league of women voters decide they didn't want to play. that law was struck down by a federal court but it did a lot of damage while it was in effect. you're seeing attempts to take away people's ability to vote early so we've got -- took early voting starting in iowa in places like ohio and florida. you're seeing laws passed to reduce the number of states where early voting can happen. that does have an impact, like i said, minority voter
to debunk a false -- debunk false claims. i think "the weekly standard" would agree. when we look at civil rights, it should be not about the quality of results. -- it might reflect that there is a republican primary going on, or it might reflect the fact that they are feeling the same journalistic standards. -- they are failing the same journalistic standards. i think this varies over time. that is just a false logic. i do not know that it is 3 to 1, and i do not know the time you're talking about. some of that is republicans criticizing other republicans. it is certainly not three to one on our side. other questions? we have two here, if we can get the microphone over to the table in front of the cameras. i am keeping her hopping here. >> i am michael, and given what we have just heard about people choosing to believe their side or their candidate or their team of people that believe they are objective journalists, and i count myself among them, and i do not believe that many voters believe that being a liar is a disqualifying traits. what are you guys seeing? what can happen on the grou
a new constitution. with that constitution, we further secured the human rights and civil liberties of our citizens and entrenched constitutional governance and justice. over each of the past 0 years we have scored significant victries over diseases including h.i.v. and aids. malaria. tuberculosis and other childhood and adult diseases. hundreds of thousands of more children have found their way into school and in life, life skills through training and capacity building. we have also taken many kenyans and put them on the pathaway of economic independence and self-reliance. in doing this, we have also expanded our economic base. opening up new andive infrastructure, energy, and information technology projects. the achievements in our country have been attained through the respect for the rule of law. through sound policies, improved governance, as well as open and innovative democracy. however, as all kenyans recognize, we will have a lot more work to do. poverty, disease, unemployment still remain a big challenge for us. nevertheless, i am confident that we will see the opportunity
respect the right in a situation of civil war? >> is not just accepting the right, it is the position of the international world. it is not achievable in every country right now. there are lots of countries where you don't have those kinds of rights were we have solid relations with china. and so is an aspiration and it is an aspiration that increasingly, over time, has become a reality in some many parts of the world. and so we keep pushing that aspiration ford and keep hoping that country after country, one group of people after another will learn to live in peace and build a representative form of government. when you say democracy, you think american jeffersonian model. there are lots of models. but is the aspiration that everyone has the right to self- determination. i hope it will happen in syria as well. we don't know how to make it happen, but remember that we live with all the countries in the arab spring for years without those rights being there. we found it necessary to accommodate ourselves to the fact that these were autocratic leaders and it was their people that finall
involve actual involvement on the ground. i don't know the attitude that either. so right now i think we are kind of, we are kind of in a difficult position where it's horrible to see these things unfold every day on television, but it is a civil war. and you hope you can find a point of fatigue reached on the part of both sides so the and then try to find a kind of peaceful resolution. it's not very peaceful after what you've seen what's been done in the cities with all the loss of life. but i think neither side is close to that point of fatigue, and i do not see anyone really coming to a solution involving the use of military force to break the elections apart, or to oppose a settlement on the situation. so it's going to continue to be ugly for a long period of time. can't tell you how long. it might be two weeks. it might be to use. remember what his father was prepared to do back in the early '80s, killing 80,000 people, and not giving up alawite control of that country. and that's what assad is facing. not just his personal destiny and his family, but his whole people. >> okay, than
of principles that we agree with with pakistan on afghanistan. i think neither of us want to see the civil war. we should find that basis. the question people are struggling with right now with the right mechanism in the bilateral relationship, but the right mechanism to pull people together to find those things we have in common. anyone in the last month or six weeks there've been developments i'm not privy to but i sense i'm moving ahead. per your question is a good one. we don't have, to my knowledge, we have not achieved the kind of meeting of minds on afghanistan that were going to need for this process up to 2014 and beyond 2014 to address. so it is an open question i agree if there is a tough one, that is the. i'm an independent consultant and i have a couple of questions that pick up on other points that i believe you made. if i understood you correctly, you really suggesting that we start our relations when people share our values. i'm sympathetic to that idea. i wanted first to make a comment, which many of those people in some sense identified with our values or goals are at least s
these people, train journalists, train politicians, and train them how to provide services. right now a lot of these areas aren't getting electricity. they aren't getting sanitation. how do you help the civil service help deliver services to the country so everything's not falling apart, and then waiting for that day after that we've been talking about? but as you see, it's continuing to spiral, many deaths, and while they're planning for the day after, people are dying right now. >> when is the day after? when is the day after? all right elise labott, thank you so much for that. we appreciate it. john, back to you. >> all right, 14 minutes after the hour right now. lots of news this morning. let's get the headlines from christine romans. >> with two days to go before the first of three critical debates, president obama is hunkering down in nevada, getting prepped with massachusetts senator john kerry. he's scheduled to fly in to play the part of mitt romney in practice sessions. the president trying to lower expectations at a rally in las vegas yesterday. >> mitt romney, he's a debater. i'
Search Results 0 to 18 of about 19 (some duplicates have been removed)